The divine trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or, The blessed doctrine of the three coessentiall subsistents in the eternall Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct subsistences or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead acknowledged, beleeved, adored by Christians, in opposition to pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, blasphemous and antichristian hereticks, who say they are Christians, but are not / declared and published for the edification and satisfaction of all such as worship the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three as one and the self same God blessed for ever, by Francis Cheynell ...
About this Item
Title
The divine trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or, The blessed doctrine of the three coessentiall subsistents in the eternall Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct subsistences or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead acknowledged, beleeved, adored by Christians, in opposition to pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, blasphemous and antichristian hereticks, who say they are Christians, but are not / declared and published for the edification and satisfaction of all such as worship the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three as one and the self same God blessed for ever, by Francis Cheynell ...
Author
Cheynell, Francis, 1608-1665.
Publication
London :: Printed by T.R. and E.M. for Samuel Gellibrand ...,
1650.
Rights/Permissions
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms
Trinity.
Theology, Doctrinal.
Cite this Item
"The divine trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or, The blessed doctrine of the three coessentiall subsistents in the eternall Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct subsistences or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead acknowledged, beleeved, adored by Christians, in opposition to pagans, Jewes, Mahumetans, blasphemous and antichristian hereticks, who say they are Christians, but are not / declared and published for the edification and satisfaction of all such as worship the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three as one and the self same God blessed for ever, by Francis Cheynell ..." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/a32801.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 4, 2024.
Pages
descriptionPage 181
CHAP. VII.
The three Vncreated, Divine,
and Coessentiall Subsistents are
sufficiently distinguished, though
they cannot be divided.
WE are now come to treat of that
profound Mystery, at which men
and Angels stand amazed. How can three
be one? (saith the Disputer of this world)
or one be three? Can one be distinguished
again and again from himself? O bold fools,
(saith Athanasius) Why do you not lay aside
your curiosity, and enquire no farther after
a Trinity, then to beleeve that there is a Tri∣nity?
The Scripture saith there is but one
God, and the Scripture saith that the Fa∣ther,
Son and Holy Ghost are this one
God; and yet the Scripture saith, that the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three, three
and yet one: three Persons and yet one
God. We have shewen above that the
Godhead cannot be multiplyed; now we
are to shew that the Persons are distin∣guished,
and what kind of distinction there
is between these three divine and uncreated
Persons.
1. These divine and uncreated Persons
descriptionPage 182
are sufficiently distinguished to our appre∣hension,
who ought to judge, beleeve,
speak, worship, according to the Word of
God.
2. These uncreated Persons were truly
distinguished from one another before
there was any Scripture, any world; for
the Coexistencie and distinction of these
glorious Persons is eternall, and therefore
this distinction cannot be grounded upon
the mere phrase of Scripture; it is the true
intent of God in severall plain expressions
of Scripture, to declare unto us the distin∣ction
of these divine and uncreated Per∣sons.
I shall prove this point fully and
clearly by certain steps and degrees.
[ I] 1. These uncreated Persons have di∣stinct
and proper names in the Word of
God. The Father, the Son, [or the Word]
and the Holy-Ghost [or Spirit] Now that
we may not be Tritheites or Sabellians, let
us consider that these three names do not
signifie three different Natures, and yet
they do signifie three different Persons, for
descriptionPage 183
it is evident that one Person cannot be
praedicated of another, the Father is not
the Son, nor is the Son the Father; the
Holy Ghost is not either of them, nor is
either of them the Holy Ghost; and there∣fore
they are three distinct Persons of the
Godhead.
[ II] 2. These Uncreated Persons are Coe∣quall,
and therefore they are distinct; It is
most absurd to say that the same Person is
equall to himself. But the Son is said to be
equall to the Father. Philip. 2. therefore
the Son is not the Father. We do usual∣ly
say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
are equall in power, to note a distinction of
Persons; but then when we speak strictly,
we do not say the power of the Persons is
equall, but we say the power of the Persons
is the same, to note the unity of their Es∣sence.
We say the Persons are equall in
power. goodnesse, wisdome, &c. to note
that one person doth not exceed another
in degrees of wisdom, power, &c. because it
is impossible that there should be any degrees
in that which is infinite; and the power, wis∣dome,
&c. of all the three Persons is the
same infinite perfection, because all three
have the same infinite Essence. And there∣fore
when we look upon Power in a com∣mon
notion, as referred to the divine Es∣sence
which is common to all three Persons,
we say it is the same power. But when
descriptionPage 184
we look upon power in a singular notion
as it is communicated after a singular man∣ner
to this, or that person, we say this per∣son
is equall to that in power, the Father
equall to the Son, the Spirit equall to both,
to note the distinction of the Persons, and
not the distinction of the Power, because
the self-same Almighty Power is commu∣nicated
to the severall persons in a severall
way; Power is in the Father of and from
himself [that is] not from any other Person;
the same power is communicated to the
Son, but it is communicated to him by eter∣nal
generation, and to the Spirit by eternal
procession; the ••ame power then is com∣municated
to different coequall persons in
a different way, as we shall more fully de∣clare
before we conclude this seventh
chapter.
[ III] 3. The Uncreated Persons are suffici∣ently
distinguished by their number. The
nature of God is the first Entity, the first
Unity, and therefore it is uncapable of
number, because it is most singularly single,
and actually infinite. It is not proper (if
we speak strictly) to say that God is one in
Number; we should rather say, that God
is one, and an only one. Deus non est unus
Numero, sed unicus. But the Persons of the
descriptionPage 185
Godhead are three in number: the Scrip∣ture
speaks expressely of three These three,
1 Iohn 5. 7.
If any man in Athanasius his time asked
how many persons subsist in the Godhead,
they were wont to send him to Iordan;
Go say they to Iordan and there you may
hear and see the blessed Trinity; or if you
will beleeve the holy Scriptures, read the
third chapter of Matthew, the 16 and 17.
verses, for there▪
1. The Father speaks in a voice from
Heaven, and owns his only begotten Son,
saying, This is my beloved Son, &c.
2. The Son went down into the water
and was baptized.
3. The Holy Ghost did visibly descend
upon Jesus Christ.
In the fourteenth of Iohn we have a
plain Demonstration of this truth. I [saith
the Son] will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Comforter, Iohn 14. 16,
17. May we not safely conclude from
hence that the Spirit is a distinct Person,
Another Person from the Father and the
Son? for the Text is cleare, the Son will
pray, and the Father will give Another
Comforter; we know the Holy Ghost is
not Another God, he is the same God with
the Father and the Son, and therefore we
must confesse that it is meant of Ano∣ther
Person; he shall give you Another
descriptionPage 186
Comforter, even the Spirit of truth, verse
16, 17. And againe, in the 26. verse of the
same Chapter. But when the Comforter is
come whom I will send unto you from the
Father, even the Spirit of truth. What
can there be more expresse or cleare? The
Scripture teaches us to reckon right, and
we see the divine Persons are reckoned
three in Number: One Person is not another,
there are diverse Persons, there are three
Persons, the number numbred, the Persons
numbred are named by their distinct and
proper names, the number numbring is ex∣pressely
set down in sacred Records. We
are not more exact in any accounts then
we are in reckoning of witnesses, whose
testimony is produced in a businesse of
great consequence, and high concernment.
Now in the great question about the
Messiah, witnesses are produced to assure
us, that Iesus Christ the Son of the Virgin,
and the only begotten Son of God, is the true
Messiah, the only all-sufficient Saviour of
his people from their sins. And there are
three Witnesses named and produced for
the proof of this weighty point.
Now, one Person that hath three names,
or two Persons, and an Attribute of one or
both Persons cannot passe for three Wit∣nesses
in any fair and reasonable account;
we are sure God reckons right, and he reck∣ons
Father, Son and Holy Ghost for three
descriptionPage 187
Witnesses, and he doth not reckon these
three and the Godhead for foure (as they
do who dream of a Quaternity) because
these three are one and the same God bles∣sed
for ever. Let us then be exact in ob∣serving,
since the Holy Ghost is so exact in
making of the account. In the eighth of
Iohn the Pharisees object that our Saviour
did bear record of himself, and did con∣clude
from thence that therefore his re∣cord
was not true,Iohn 8. 13. Our Saviour
answers in the next verse.Though I beare
record of my self, yet my record is true;
for I am not alone,but I and the Father that
sent me.And it is written in your Law, that
the testimony of two men is true. I am one
that beare witnesse of my self,and the Fa∣ther
that sent me beareth witnesse of me.
It is most clear and evident by this dis∣course
that our blessed Lord did make a
fair legall just account; for he cites the
Law concerning the validity of a testimo∣ny
given in by two witnesses; and then
he reckons his Father for one witnesse, and
himself for another. I am one saith he,
and my Father is Another; I and my Father
make two sufficient Witnesses in a just and
legall account. There is Another (saith
he) that beareth witnesse of me, and I
know that the witnesse which he witnes∣seth
of me is true, Iohn 5 32. There is An∣other
saith he; he doth not meane another
descriptionPage 188
God; for when he speaks of his power and
Godhead, he saith, I and my Father are one,
Iohn 10. 30. Christ and his Father are one
God, but Christ and his Father are two
distinct Persons, for they are reckoned as
two distinct witnesses; and one Person must
not be reckoned for two witnesses. There
is Another that bears witnesse,Iohn 5. 32.
and the Father himself, v. 37. bears wit∣nesse
of me. Well then, Christ is one
witness, the Father is another, and the Ho∣ly
Ghost is a third witness, 1 Iohn 5. 7. we
see the Holy Ghost speaks as plainly in this
point as we do when we teach a child to tell
one, two, and three. For there are three that
bear record in Heaven, the Father, the
Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one. If we peruse the Scriptures di∣ligently
as we ought, we shall finde that
these Witnesses are three Persons, who are
one and the same blessed God. They are
one in nature, though three in subsistence,
to shew that these three Persons are not to
be reckoned as three men are, who have
three distinct singular natures really divi∣ded
and separated; for these three glorious
Persons subsist in one another, and have
one and the same single undivided and in∣divisible
nature; and they are three Wit∣nesses,
three Persons truly distinct, Iohn 1.
14, 18. cap 5, 3••, cap. 14, 16.
[ IV] IV. The divine Persons are distinguish∣ed
descriptionPage 189
by their inward and personall actions.
The Father did from all Eternity com∣municate
thea living Essence of God to
the Son, in a most wonderfull and glori∣ous
way; Now it is cleare that the Father
did not beget himselfe; and therefore the
Son is another Person truly distinct from
the Father, and yet equall to the Father, be∣cause
he is begotten in the Unity of the
same Godhead, and hath life in himselfe,
John 5. 26. the living Essence of God who is
life it selfe being communicated to him by
an eternall generation. The unbegotten Fa∣ther
is clearly distinguished from the only
begotten Son. But I dare not say as some
do, that the Father is Active, and the Son
Passive in this eternall generation because
this generation is eternall. Forbnothing
which is eternall, can be truly said to be in a
Passive Power to any thing, much lesse can
it be said to be in a Passive Power to be.
The Son hath life in himselfe, is life it self,
hath life essentially, and as he is the same
Essence with the Father, is of himselfe, and
hath all that is essentiall from that very Es∣sence;
but that Essence is communicated to
the Son by thec Father, and therefore the
Son is said to receive all from the Father.
But then we must consider that the Son re∣ceives
nothing from the Father as from an
descriptionPage 190
externall cause but as from an intrinsecall
Principle rather the cause, for the Son doth
not depend upon the Father as an Effect
upon its Cause; And I call the Fatherdan
Intrinsecall Principle of the Sons Subsistence,
because the Father doth beget the Son of,
and in himself in the unity of the same
Godhead; their Divine Nature is one and
the same, and their Persons are Coequall
and Coeternall▪ because they are Coessen∣tiall.
This is the very Mystery of Myste∣ries
which corrupt and wanton Reason de∣rides,
but prudent Faith admires and adores.
The Socinians tell us, that they cannot be∣leeve,
that the Father did beget a Son of his
owne substance, because God is eternall
and unchangeable; the single essence of
God is indivisible, and being most singu∣larly
one is incommunicable; part of the
Divine Essence could not be communi∣cated
(say they) to the Son, because the
essence is impartible, indivisible; and the self
same whole Essence cannot be communica∣ted,
because it is most singularly one, and
therefore incommunicable. Essentia quae
est una Numero est incommunicabilis.
To this grand Objection I shall return a
plain Answer out of pure Scripture, and
deliver it in certain Propositions or Con∣clusions,
descriptionPage 191
that the Answer may be more
direct, cleare and satisfactory.
Conclusions concerning the eternal
generation.
1. The Father did beget his Son; the
Father himself bears witnesse to this truth,
and his witnesse is full, and clear, and true.
Jehovah hath said unto me,Thou art my
Son,this day have I begotten thee, Psal. 2. 7.
Nay, the Father declares this truth to men
and Angels as a Practicall truth that they
may direct and regulate their worship ac∣cording
to this Mystery. The Apostle
proves that Christ is more excellent then
Angels, because he hath a more excellent
Name then they; For, unto which of the
Angels said he at any time, thou art my
Son, this day have I begotten thee? And a∣gain,
I will be to him a Father, and he shall
be to me a Son, Hebr. 1. 4, 5. Here's a double
proof of the point, he hath a more excel∣lent
name, because he is the Son of God in
a peculiar sense, and hath the divine na∣ture
communicated to him, as shall be ful∣ly
proved ere we conclude this point; for
the name of Son is not an empty Title, he hath
the divine nature of his Father in him. Now
that he is the Son of God, is testifyed a∣gain,
and again, saith the Apostle, verse 5.
And he begins the sixth verse thus, And a∣gain,
&c. You see how he doth inculcate
descriptionPage 192
this point, how he beates upon it again
and againe; and the reason is, because
this truth is Fundamentall both of Faith and
Worship, as is most evident in the sixth verse
of that chapter. And again when he brings
in the first-begotten into the world, he saith,
And let all the Angels of God worship him,
Hebr. 1. 6.
You see this Mystery of the unbegot∣ten
Father, and the only begotten Son is
held forth to men and Angels in order to
worship that their worship may be direct∣ed
to Jesus Christ as the Son of the living God,
and to God the Father, as the Father of our
Lord Iesus Christ. God declared this
truth after a glorious manner from heaven,
that it might be more diligently consider∣ed.And lo a voice from heaven,saying,
this is my beloved Son Matth. 3. 17. when
he was bapt••zed: and the like we read of
when he was transfigured in the presence
of the Disciples in the holy Mount. And
the Apostle doth take notice of these so∣lemne
declarations from heaven, and layes
them down as Fundamentals of the Chri∣stian
Religion, 2 Pet. 1. from the 16. verse
to the twentieth. All the glorious Miracles
wrought by our Saviour, Iohn 5. 36 and his
resurrection from the Dead bear witnesse
to this fundamental truth, that Christ is the
first begotten, and the only begotten Son of
the living God; be pleased to compare, Acts.
descriptionPage 193
13. 32, 33. with Romans 1. 4. and it will
be evident that he was not made, but onely
declared to be the Son of God at the time
of his Resurrection.
2. The Father did beget his Son from [ II]
all eternity before his works of old; I (saith
the Son who is the wisdome of the Father)
was set up frome everlasting, when as the
highest part of the dust of the earth was
not made, when he prepared the heavens
I was there, &c. Prov. 8. from 21 verse to
the 31. his goings forth were of old from the
dayes of eternity, Micah 5. 2. Iohn 1. 1. 2, 3. he
was with God, he was God, before the beginning
he had glory with his Father before the world
was, Iohn 17. 5. Relataf simul sunt.
3. The Father did beget his Son in the [ III]
unity of the Godhead; the Scripture speaks
expressely that Christ is thegProper or
Naturall Son of God; he spared not his
own Son, or his Proper Sonne; Rom.
8. 32. God is the Father of Christ, his
own Father, Iohn 5. 18. the Iewes did well
understand the importance and force of
that expression, for say they, in that he
said God is his own Father, he hath made
himself equall with God; and therefore
that Phrase doth import that he is the Na∣turall
and Coessentiall Son of God, else he
descriptionPage 194
could not be Coequall with his Father, Iohn
5 18. Philip. 2. 6. All those Texts which
prove that Christ is God, and that there is
but one God, do prove that Christ is the Na∣turall
and Coessentiall Son of God. God hath
but one Coessentiall Son, to whom he hath
given to have life in himself, Iohn 5. 26.
because the Divine Nature, which is life it
self is communicated to the Son by this
eternall and ineffable generation. It is
proper to living creatures to communicate
their nature by generation in their low
and imperfect way; but the great God
who is not subject to imperfection, doth
after the most glorious and perfect man∣ner
beget a Son in the unity of his own
living Essence, who is therefore called the
Son of the living God, that is the Natu∣rall
and Coessentiall Son of God, who
hath the same Divine Life, Nature, Essence
with the Father; and therefore Peter is so
highly commended for confessing that
Christ is the Son of the living God; Bles∣sed
art thou, saith our Saviour for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my
Father which is in heaven; upon this fun∣damentall
truth, Christ hath built the Chri∣stian
Church as on a Rock, Matth. 16. 16.
17, 18. He who hath life in himself is the
Naturall and Coessentiall Son of the living
God: he hath the same Will, Power, Na∣ture,
Essence, Life with his Father, Iohn 5.
descriptionPage 195
18, 26. Iohnh16. 15. Iohn 10. 30. 1 Iohn
5. 7. The same single and infinite Essence
is in Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the whole
undivided and indivisible Essence of God
dwels in the Son in its fulnesse and infinite
perfection. Coloss. 2. 9.
4. The Father did beget his Son with∣out [ IV]
change ori motion after a most glori∣ous
and wonderfull manner; there can be
no change, motion, or succession in this e∣ternall
and most perfect generation. The
Essence of God is spirituall, Iohn 4. 24. and
therefore the Son is not begotten of the
Fathers seed, or any materiall substance,
because God is a single and pure Act, who
doth beget a Son within himself Essentially
one with himself and therefore his Sonne
doth not subsist out of himself, John 14. 10.
Iohn 10. 30. for an infinite nature cannot
be poured forth beyond it self. There can
be no essentiall change in the Son by this
generation, because the generation is eter∣nall,
and the nature which is communicated
by generation is unchangable; the Father
did unchangably beget his Son, and his Son
is unchangably begotten, there is no shadow
of changing or turning either in the Father
of lights, or the Son of righteousnesse, be∣cause
descriptionPage 196
they are one and the same unchang∣able
Jehovah, Iames 1. 17 Malach. 3. 6.
They are tookcarnall and base who make
an unworthy and odious comparison between
the material generation of a weak man, and
this more then spirituall and supernaturall ge∣neration.
The eternall and unchangable Fa∣ther
doth beget an eternall and unchang∣able
Son according to the perfection of his
eternall, unchangable, infinite nature. The
Father doth beget his Son naturally, and
therefore in a way agreeable to his un∣changable
Nature; if the Son were not
necessarily begotten, his being would not
be necessary, and then his Essence would
not be divine.
[ V] V. Jesus Christ is truly and properly
the onely-begotten Son of God, and there∣fore
the only Naturall Son of God. Jesus
Christ is called the Son of David according
descriptionPage 197
to his humane nature: but the Lord of Da∣vid,
and the Son of the living God accor∣ding
to his divine nature, as appeares by
our Saviours discourse with the Pharisees,
Matth. 22. from the 41. verse to the 46.
And the Jewes sought to kill Christ be∣cause
he called God his proper Father, as
appears by the originall text; for our En∣glish
translation doth omit that most ob∣servable
Emphasis; the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,
Iohn 5. 18. and Christ is
called Gods proper Son; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Rom. 8.
32. and the Apostle gives the reason why
he is called the proper Son of God in a
more excellent way then the most glorious
Angel is the Son of God, because Christ is
begotten by the Father, but the Angles were
only created by him; observe the words
of the Apostle, For unto which of the An∣gels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son,
this day have I begotten thee; so that the
proper reason why he is called the proper
Son of God, is, because he is begotten of
God; there is the most excellent reason
why Christ is said to obtain a more excel∣lent
name then Angels: Christ was begot∣ten
in the unity of the Godhead, and ther∣fore
he alone is properly the Son of God
with a supereminent excellency. The Angels
are not such excellent sons as Christ is.
descriptionPage 198
1. Because Christ is begotten of God,
v. 5.
2. Worshipped by Angels with divine
honour, worshipped as God, v. 6.
3. He hath the Throne, Scepter, King∣dom
of God, v. 8.
4. He hath the soveraign and proper
Title of God, v. 8.
5. The Attributes of God, eternity, v,
8, 10, ••1, 12.
6. He sits at the right hand of God,
v. 13.
All these excellencies are due to Christ
as the proper Son of God, Hebr. 1. wher∣as
the Angels the most excellent sons by
creation are but ministring spirits.
From the••e proper and excellent rea∣sons
we infer that Christ is the only proper
or naturall Son of God, because he is the
descriptionPage 199
only-begotten Son of God. We, saith Iohn,
beheld his glory As of the only begotten
Son of God. The word [As] is not assimi∣lative,
but declarative, and demonstrative
in that place, for it doth declare to us that
the glory of Christ is agreeable to his di∣vine
nature, he being the only naturall Son
of God, because he is the only begotten
Son of God; just as if when we see a King
sitting in his Royall robes on his Throne,
with a Crowne on his head and a Scepter
in his hand, we should say now we see him
as a King, that is, now he is like himselfe.
his state is agreeable to his Majesty; even
so was the glory of Christ which the Apo∣stles
beheld agreeable to the majesty of
the only begotten Son of God, Iohn 1. 14.
and therfore the word [As] was not insert∣ed
tanquam terminus diminuens to diminish
the glory of the only begoten Son of God;
for the word [As] is left out in the▪ 18.
verse of this very chapter, The only begot∣ten
Son which is in the bosome of the Fa∣ther,
Iohn 1 v. 18. The Scripture doth a∣bound
with several expressions to the same
purpose. But we are specially to observe
that the only begotten Son of God is propoun∣ded
to us as the object of saving Faith, and
therefore this point ought to be diligently
studied and considered by us. For so God lo∣ved
the world, that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever beleeves in him should
descriptionPage 200
not perish but have everlasting life, John 3.
16. The Socinians observing how much it
concernes us to stand stedfast, and not
yeeld one whit of ground in this point,
have tryed their wit to deceive and seduce
us, and therefore they object.
Isaac is called the only Son of Abra∣ham,
Gen. 22. 2. 12.
To this we answer without any great
study, That Isaac was the only Son which
Abraham had by Sarah: he was the onely
begotten Son of the Promise; though Isma∣el
was the son of Abraham by Hagar, the
bond-woman, in an unworthy and disho∣nourable
way; and therefore this example
will not serve the turn, we reject it, for its
impertin••ncy and dissimilitude. Christ is
the only begotten Son of God, he is Ab∣solutely
and Simply considered his only be∣gotten
Son, and not only in some respect as
Isaac was the only son of Abraham Christ
(as Gregory Nazianzen said) is truly the
Son of God, he alone is the Son, and the only
Son of the Father, and his son in an only or
singular way, and he is the son only, he is
not the Father also, or the holy Ghost Jesus
Christ is the proper Naturall true son of
God, begotten by the Father without a
mother in the unity of the Godhead, from
all eternity, equall to the Father, one and
the same God with the Father, as the Scri∣pture
sets it forth; and therefore we con∣clude
that he is simply and absolutely the
descriptionPage 201
only begotten Son of God, a more excel∣lent
son then all the other sons of God, not
only more excellent in degree, for gradus
non mutat speciem; but a super-excellent
son, who doth differ from all his other
sons, plusquam genere aut specie, because
he is one God with the Father. Iesus
Christ is truly the Son of God, because he
is the true God, 1 Iohn 5. 20. begotten of
the Father, Heb, 1 5. begotten without
a mother, Hebr. 7. 3. begotten from the
dayes of eternity, Micah. 5. 2. a son equal
to his Father, who begot him, Iohn 5. 18.
Phil. 2. 6. The Son of God, Matth. 16. 16.
the first begotten, and the only begotten
Son of God, the naturall and proper Son
of God; for he is as the Father is, God by
nature, Gal. 4. 8. and therefore naturally,
necessarily, eternally begotten of the Father
in the unity of the Godhead; and there∣fore
there is more then a graduall, nay
more then a specificall or genericall diffe∣rence
between this and all other sonnes of
God; we see by all these various expressi∣ons,
and by those divine and glorious Attri∣butes
which are ascribed to Christ in Scri∣pture,
that God hath wonderfully decla∣red
his love to us in sending his only be∣gotten
to redeeme us according to that
of the Apostle, 1 Iohn 4. 9. In this was ma∣nifest
the love of God towards us, because
that God sent his only begotten Son into the
descriptionPage 202
world that we might live through him. When
our Saviour called God his Father, the
Iewes did very well understand that he
meant it in a proper and peculiar sense,
and therefore told him that he did make
himself equall with God, Iohn 5. 17. 18. and
that being but a man he made himself God,
Iohn 10. 33. And though the Jewes accused
him of blasphemy, and endeavoured to
stone him as they pretended for his
blasphemy, yet our Saviour doth not
excuse his speech, or say he meant it in
a Metaphoricall sense, but doth defend it
by many arguments both in the fifth and
in the tenth chapters of Saint Iohn, though
he did thereby endanger his life; he saith he
is equall to the Father, nay one with the Fa∣ther,
Iohn 5. 18. Iohn 10. 30. and when the
High Priest asked him whether he was the
Son of the blessed, Mark 14. 61. our Saviour
answers; I am: there's a punctuall and po∣sitive
affirmation of it, v. 62, 63. and you
may easily know in what sense the High
Priest meant it, by his renting of his
clothes, and condemning our Saviour to
death for blasphemy, v. 64. And yet our
Saviour did not endeavour to allay their
heat and rage with any retractation; he
would not say that he spake Metaphorical∣ly,
for he spake properly, he meant that he
was the proper and naturall Son of God,
who had the same nature and power with
descriptionPage 203
the Father, and therefore was able to do,
and actually did the same works with his
Father. And the Iewes did understand him
so, and therefore urged the Law against
him, and condemned him to death for
blasphemy, Iohn 19. 7. The Iews answered
him, We have a Law, and by our Law he
ought to die, because he made himself the Son
of God. Mark the reason, because he made
himself the Son of God; If our Saviour had
not meant that he was the proper and na∣turall
Son of God, a Son equall to the Fa∣ther,
& one God with the Father, the Iews
would not have accused him of blasphemy.
Moreover the Iewes do generally hold
that those words of the second Psalme,This day have I begotten thee, are meant of
the Messiah, as Rabbi Salomon doth ac∣knowledge
in his commentary upon the
place. Whatsoever saith he is sung in this
Psalme, our Masters have interpreted of
King Messiah; but (saith he) and he whis∣pers
it as a secret) in regard of the sound
of the words, and for the refutation of
Hereticks (for so the Iew calls us Christi∣ans)
we think fit to expound it of David
himself. Here's a Iew would faine conceal
a confessed truth from Christians, and there
are some others it seems that would con∣ceal
this malitious concealment, for these
descriptionPage 204
words are expunged out of the great He∣brew
Bibles set forth at Basil, but they are
to be found in the Hebrew Bibles set forth
with the Commentaries of the Rabbins at
Venice by Bombergius, or else I had not in∣sisted
upon the words; I hope the detect∣ing
of this fraud may be very usefull, but
I must hasten to some other arguments.
The Socinians t••ll us that there are five
Causes of Christs sonship assigned in Scri∣pture,
which arr all temporall causes, and
therfore they see no reason why we should
assert, or they beleeve this eternall genera∣tion
of the Son of God, since Christ may
be called the Son of God upon another,
and farre different account. We desire to
know whether every one of these five cau∣ses
be totall or perpetuall causes; if they be
every one a totall cause, then there will be
as many sonships as there are causes, no lesse
then five sonships; for that rule is certaine,
where there is a totall and sufficient cause
in act, there the effect must needs follow.
If they be partiall causes, then the causes
which succeed in order, do not produce
their complete effect, untill the last cause be
in act; this we premise, that the vanity of
this invention may be more evident in the
whole contexture of their discourse. I shall
now give them leave to speak their mind
freely, and fully.
1. The first Cause of this Divine son∣ship
descriptionPage 125
is (as they conceive) the Conception
of Christ by the Holy Ghost, whereby
(say they) Christ is said to be begotten of
God in an excellent and peculiar way; and
they urge that testimony of the Angel,
which stands upon Record, Luke 1. 35,
to make good their conceit; And the An∣gel
answered, and said unto her: The holy
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of
the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore
also that holy thing which shall be borne of
thee shall be called the Son of God. These
words of the Angel have reference to the
prophesie of Isaiah mentioned in the 31.
verse of this first of Luke. The words of
Isaiah are, Behold a Virgin shall conceive
and beare a Son, and shall call his name Imma∣nuel,
Isaiah 7. 14. they shall call his name Ie∣sus,
Matth. 1. 21. he shall be called the Son
of the highest, the Son of God, Luke 1. You
see the words are different, and therefore
we must have speciall respect to the thing
signified. Observe then
1. That the Prophet did foretell two
particulars.
First, that a Virgin should bear a Son.
Secondly, that the Son born of her
should be called the Son of God. The Vir∣gin
doubts of the first particular, and en∣quires
how that could be without the
knowledge of a man? The Angel informs
her, that she should conceive after a pecu∣liar
descriptionPage 206
and admirable manner by the over∣shadowing
of the Holy Ghost; and from
thence infers the second particular, that
she should bring forth a Son, who was to
be called the Son of God; and he gives
the very same reason which was given by
Saint Matthew, because it was so foretold
by the Prophet Isaiah, Matth, 1. 20, 21, 22.
for the particle [Therefore] Luke 1. 35. is
not to be referred to the conception of
Christ as the Cause of this divine sonship,
but to the Prophecy of Isaiah recorded
Luke 1. 31. for all this was done that it might
be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet
Matth. 1. 22.
2. They shall call his name Immanuel,
God with us, and therefore he, the same per∣son
shall be called the Son of God; this is
an higher reason then that which the Soci∣nians
alleage.
3. The Socinians put a Fallacy upon us
by assigning that to be the Cause which is
not the true Cause, [he shall be called] that
is declared and acknowledged to be the Son
of God. This Declaration or manifestati∣on
of the Son of God in the flesh was tem∣porall,
1 Tim. 3. 16. but his generation was
eternall, Micah 5. 2. The Son of God was
sent, manifested, incarnate, in the fulnesse of
time, Gal. 4. 4. but he was the Son of God
before his Incarnation, and therefore his
Incarnation is not the cause of his divine
descriptionPage 207
sonship, the effect cannot be before the
cause, but the divine sonship of Christ was
before the world was. The Holy Ghost
is never called the Father of Christ, and he
could not be the principle of the subsistence
or the Word, and therefore not the Cause
of this divine sonship. The Apostle states
the point, and puts it past all dispute, Rom.
1. 3, 4. Christ was made of the seed of Da∣vid
according to the flesh, but determined
and declared to be the Son of God with pow∣er
according to the spirit of holinesse by the
resurrection from the dead; from whence
it followes directly that Christ is not pro∣perly
the Son of God according to the flesh,
but is in that consideration rather to be
called the Son of David as we observed a∣bove,
because Christ came of David as con∣cerning
the flesh; but the eternall Son of God,
is God blessed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. When
the Jewes said that our Saviour blasphem∣ed,
because he made himself God, John 10,
33. Christ askes them whether they did
accuse him of blasphemy, because he said
he was the son of God? v. 36. whereby he
declared that he was the Son of God ac∣cording
to his person which is truly divine;
beleeve (saith he) that the Father is in me
and I in him, v. 38. The force of his an∣swer
is evident: I am in the Father, and the
Father in me, and therefore I am a divine
person; I am the Son of God, and therefore
descriptionPage 208
the divine nature is communicated to my per∣son,
I am begotten in the unity of the God.
head, I am in the Father, and therefore if it
be no blasphemy for me to say that I am the
Son of God, it is no blasphemy at all to say
that I am God, because the divine nature is
communitated to the naturall and proper
Son of God; there's the proper reason why
Christ is called the Son of God, because
the divine nature was communicated to
him by an eternal generation.
[ II] II. The second cause assigned by the So∣cinians
why Christ is called the Son of God,
is the sanctification of Christ, for which
they cite Iohn 10. 35, 36. Behold say they
the second cause of this divine sonship
plainly set forth unto us, Christ hath ob∣tained
an excellent portion of the Spirit,
he is sanctified and sent with a divine pow∣er
into the world to save mankind.
To which we answer, that here is the
same fallacy obtruded again, because
1. Christ was the Son of God before he
was sent into the world. 2. God did not
give the spirit by measure to him, Iohn 3.
34. 3. Christ proves in that tenth chapter
of Iohn, that he is one with his Father in
power, and therefore in nature, as appears
1. Because he doth the same works that
his Father doth, v. 37.
2. Because he is in his Father, and his
Father in him, v. 38.
descriptionPage 209
3. Because he is the Naturall Son of
God, and therefore might truly call him∣self
God, v. 33. 36.
4. Because they themselves called Ma∣gistrates
Gods, upon a cheaper account; on∣ly
in regard of their Commission and Of∣fice;
much more might he call himself
God, because he was sanctified without
measure, had an higher office and Commis∣sion,
being sent to do the work of God, to
satisfie the justice of God, and save the e∣lect
of God, which he could not have done
if he had not had the Nature of God, and
been thereby fully enabled to perfect this
work of God. The Argument is ground∣ed
upon the infinite distance, and imparity
between the office of a Mediatour, and the
office of a Magistrate; between the only
begotten Son of God, who is one with his
Father, who begot him, and the Sons of
men who are but the Deputies of God.
III. The third Cause which they assigne
of this divine sonship, is the speciall love of
the Father to this excellent Son, Matth.
3. 17.
To this we answer, that God did not
make Christ his Son because he loved him,
but he loves him because he is his Son, a
Son equall to himself, one with himself, the
expresse Image of his person, the illustri∣ous
brightnesse of his glory. That very
place which they cite makes much against
descriptionPage 210
them: God doth from heaven own Christ
for his proper and naturall Son in that
very place, Matth. 3. 17. God said not so
to the best of Angels, Hebr. 1. 4. 5 To
which of the Angels said he at any time,Thou art my Son this day have I begotten
thee? that one place is sufficient to discover
the fraud of the Socinians in this point.
[ IV] IV. The fourth Cause which they assign
is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, because
when Christ was raised from the dead he
was as it were begotten again from the dead,
Acts 13. 32, 33.
To which we answer, that Christ was
the Naturall and Proper Son of God be∣fore
his Resurrection, only he was declared
to be the Son of God by his Resurrection,
according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 1.
v. 4. Declared to be the Son of God with pow∣er
according to the spirit of holinesse, (that is
his divine nature) by the resurrection from
the dead. Christ was not made but declared
to be the Son of God by his Resurrection.
His divine sonship lay hid under the forme
of a servant before; only they who had spi∣rituall
descriptionPage 211
eyes did discern it, Iohn 1. 14. we
have seen, and beheld the glory of the only
begotten Son of God. Moreover it is ob∣servable
that the Apostle endeavours to
make the mystery of Christs divine son∣ship
manifest in the thirteenth of the Acts,
not simply by his Resurrection, but by the
manner of his Resurrection, and the state
whereunto he was raised.
1. For the manner, he was raised by his
own Almighty and most glorious power
in an irresistible way; he did offer violence
to all the forces of death and powers of
the grave, because it was not possible that
he should be holden of them, Acts ••. 24.
when he came to declare himself to be the
Son of God with power, Rom. 1. 4.
2 For the state whereunto he was rai∣sed,
he did not rise to return to the grave a∣gain,
as Lazarus did, but he raised himself
to an immortall life. And as concerning
that he raised him up from the dead, now
no more to return to corruption, Acts 13.
34. Rom. 6. 9.
Now, God by raising Christ after such
a manner, to such a state, did declare him
to be his only begotten Son, of whom Da∣vid
speaks in the second Psalm, and there∣fore
it was evident by the Resurrection of
Christ, that God had fulfilled his promise
by sending his only begotten Son to be a
Saviour unto Israel, that we might have
descriptionPage 212
forgivenesse of sins and all sure mercies
by him who died for our sins, and rose a∣gain
for our justification; this is the scope
of the Apostles discourse in the thirteenth
of the Acts from the 23 verse to the 39·
The second Psalm is cited here by Accom∣modation
to make good a remote and Im∣plicite
consequence; as those words, I am
the God of Abraham, Isaac, &c. are cited
to prove a resurrection by an Implicit con∣sequence,
Matth. 22. 31, 32. Thou art my
Son, mine owne proper Son, whom I own
for my only begotten Son by raising thee
to a never dying life.
The fifth Cause which they assigne, is
the Exaltation of our Lord and Saviour to
glory, and the conferring of a Name
and Power upon him above all creatures;
for the Apostle, as they conceive, speaks
of this sonship, Hebr. 5. 5. So also Christ
glorified not himself to be made an High
Priest, but he that said unto him, Thou art
my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
I cannot but admire that the acute Soci∣nians
should cite every place where the
second Psalm is named, to prove that there
are so many severall causes of the divine
sonship of Christ; but I do more admire
that they should cite this Text of all the
rest; for if their fifth argument have any
force in it, doth overthrow and disprove
their four first arguments. If Christ was
descriptionPage 213
not begotten before his exaltation to glo∣ry,
then he was not the Son of God before
his exaltation; for surely these men of rea∣son,
will easily grant that the effect cannot
be before its proper and complete cause was in
its causall actuality, or actuall causality.
The words of God in the second Psalm
are so often repeated, to teach us to keep
our eye constantly fixed upon the divine
sonship of Christ when ever we discourse
of his conception, birth, resurrection, trans∣figuration,
exaltation to glory, and con∣clude
that the self-same person who was
begotten of God from the dayes of eter∣nity
took our flesh, dyed for our sins, and
rose for our justification; for this is that
great and fundamentall truth which
runs quite thorow the Gospel, That the
Son of Mary who did and suffered all for
us, is the proper, the naturall Son of God,
the only and All-sufficient Saviour of his
people from their sins. We must not part
with this truth, for this is all our salvation.
It was very proper for the Apostle to
speak of his divine sonship when ever he
spake of him as a Mediatour, as a Priest, &c.
because he could not have undertaken or gone
thorow with any such office unlesse he had
been the Naturall and Proper Son of God e∣quall
to God; and therefore we do readily
grant, that the divine offices of Christ do de∣clare
and make manifest the divine sonship,
descriptionPage 214
and nature of Iesus Christ, and this truth is
most evident from the connexion of the
seven and eight verses of the second Psalm.
I have with the more patience and con∣tent
waded thorow this large and deep
sea that I might come to the haven, where
we desire to be; That we might come to
take harbour and sanctuary in the merit
and satisfaction of Jesus Christ, who is the
naturall and proper Son of God.
In the next place I am to prove the e∣ternall
procession of the Holy Ghost,
whereby I shall make the distinction of the
Persons more cleare and evident, and ther∣fore
I hasten to the discussing of that my∣sterious,
but usefull point.
The Holy Spirit is not called a spirit be∣cause
of his spirituall nature only, for the
same spirituall nature is common to all the
three blessed Persons; but he is called a
Spirit upon a special and peculiar reason
because he is breathed forth by the Father
and the Son. The Holy Ghost is called
the Spirit which is of God, 1 Cor. 2. 1••.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. The Spirit who
proceedeth from the Father is sent by the Son
from the father, Iohn 15. 26. The Greek
Church acknowledges that the Spirit doth
proceed from the Father by the Son. All
things that the Father hath are mine, saith
our Saviour, Iohn 16. 15. But the Spirit
did receive all from the Father, and Christ
descriptionPage 215
and his Father are essentially one Iohn 10.
30. the Spirit is said to receive of the Son, and
to glorifie the Son, John 16. 14. Whatsoe∣ver
things the Father doth, the Son doth;
and as the Son can do nothing without the
Father, so the Father can do nothing with∣out
the Son; not that there is a defect of pow∣er
in either, but an unity of power and nature
in both▪ The divine nature of both the Fa¦ther
and the Son was communicated to the
Spirit by this eternall spiration, and there∣fore
he is sent by both, and he receives of
both, and he glorifies both, and he is the Spi∣rit
of both the Father and the Son. He is
called the Spirit of the Father, Matth. 10.
20 because he proceedeth from the Father
Iohn 15. 26. and he is called the Spirit of
the Son of God, Gal. 4. 6. the Spirit of
Christ, Rom. 8. 9. the Spirit of Jesus Christ
Phil. 1. 19. the Spirit of Christ, 1 Pet. 1.
11. because he receives of Christ, is sent from
Christ, is breathed forth by Christ; the Fa∣ther
and the Son breath forth the subsistence
of the Spirit with one and the same spirati
on. When Christ breathed upon his Dis∣ciples,
he said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost,
to shew that he had power to dispose of the
Spirit, who did from all eternity breath
descriptionPage 216
forth the Spirit. The Holy Ghost was
breathed forth necessarily by both; I say,
necessarily, because eternally there was a
double and eternall necessity of it both in
respect of the persons breathing, and the
person breathed. The spirit was not breath∣ed
forth as a creature, but as a divine per∣son,
a person of the Godhead; he was breath∣ed
forth by Procession, and subsists in the
unity of the Godhead; he proceeds from
both, and yet in both; for one divine person
cannot subsist out of another, but all three
subsist in the same undivided and infinite
nature.
But the Socinians tell us that the Holy
Ghost is nothing else but the power and
vertue of God the Father.
To which we answer. That the Spirit
is the natural vertue of the Father no more
then he is the naturall vertue of the Son, or
of himself; for the vertue of God is the es∣sence
of God; the Holy Ghost is his own
essence, and all three persons have one and
the same essence; The Holy Ghost who
proceedeth from the Father, is called the
Power of the Father, Luke 1. 35. because
descriptionPage 217
the spirit works as he proceeds in order; the
Father works in the Son and by the Spirit.
But the Spirit who proceeds from the Fa∣ther
is distinguished from the Father; the
Spirit did not breath forth himself, or
proceed from himself. The H. Ghost doth
not speak of himself, John 16. 13. but the
Father speaks of himself, because he is
of himself, he is begotten of none, pro∣ceeds
from none of the divine persons, is
sent by none of them. The holy Ghost
doth receive of Christ, is sent by Christ;
therefore the Holy Ghost is not the Fa∣ther,
but clearly distinguished from him,
Iohn 16. 14, 15. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 16, 17,
Matth. 3. 16, 17. Matth. 28. 19. 2 Cor.
13. 14. and in diverse other places. The
Father and the Spirit are personally di∣stinguished,
but they are essentially one,
1 Iohn 5. 7. they are one in Power, Nature,
Will, and yet are three Persons, three
Witnesses who deliver one and the same
divine testimony;The testimony of the Ho∣ly
Ghost is as divine as the testimony of God
the Father. The Witnesse of God is greater,
verse 9. must refer to the Witnesse of the
Father, Word and Spirit, verse 7. though
the testimony of the Father be specially
insisted on in the following words; for all
the three Witnesses in heaven give one and
the same testimony, and that testimony is di∣vine.
The H. Ghost is the Spirit of God, and
descriptionPage 218
the Spirit which is of God, the Spirit of E∣lohim,
Gen. 1. 2. the Spirit of Jehovah,
Isa. 11. 2. the Spirit which is Jehovah and
the God of Israel, as hath been proved at
large in the fourth chapter from the 31.
page to the fortieth. The distinction be∣tween
the Father and the Spirit will be
more evident when we come to treat of
the personall properties; The Socinians
are so confounded in this point, that they
are forced to acknowledge that the Holy
Ghost is no Accidentall vertue, no finite sub∣stance,
no creature, but the uncreated and
substantiall vertue or power of God, because
whatsoever is in God, is the substance of
God; as Eniedinus confesses. And Smal∣cius
acknowledges that it may be granted
that the Holy Ghost is God, because what∣soever
is naturally in God may be called God.
But I shall prove that the Holy Ghost is
not only God, but a person of the God∣head
distinct from the Father and the Son.
Jesus Christ is called the Power of God,
1 Cor. 1. 24. and the Holy Ghost the Pow∣er
of God, Luke 1. 35, Luke 24, 49. The
Son is a distinct Person from the Father;
and the Holy Ghost is as the Ancients used
to call him, the Personall vertue or Power
of the Father proceeding from the Father, by
whom he doth declare and put forth his
power; and therefore the Spirit is said to
work and distrioute all gifts and graces as
he will; Father, Son and Holy Ghost have
descriptionPage 219
one and the same Will and Power; still
we must bottome upon that truth, These
three are one, 1 John 5. 7. That this Pro∣cession
of the Holy Ghost is mysterious,
and for the manner of it unsearchable we
do readily grant; and therefore I shall not
presume to define after what manner the
Holy Ghost is breathed forth from the Fa∣ther
and the Son; but we are sure that it
cannot be any corporeall procession. The
Ancients did constantly distinguish be∣tween
Procession and Generation; but the
eternall generation of Christ being spiri∣tuall,
the procession of the Spirit must
needs be spirituall; for the Spirit is not
only Essentially a Spirit as the Father, and
God the Son are, but he is Personally a Spi∣rit.
The more perfect and spirituall this
procession is, the more evident it is that
the Spirit was breathed forth in the unity
of the Godhead. They who say the Son
doth proceed from the Father▪ use that
terme [Proceed] in a generall and very
large signification: but then they say that
the Son did proceed by Generation, the
Spirit by Spiration thereby endeavouring
to distinguish the manner of proceeding.
2. They say the Son did proceed from the
Father alone, and therefore is aid to be
sent by the Father only; but the Holy
Ghost did proceed from the Father and
the Son both, and therefore is said to be
descriptionPage 220
sent by the Son as well as the Father, Luke
24. 49. Iohn 15. 26. Iohn 14. 26. Iohn 16.
14. but Christ is sent by the Father only,
because he is of the Father only, and was
not begotten of the Spirit; and the Fa∣ther
is not sent by any because he is of him∣self;
hereby they endeavour to distinguish
the Principle of these Divine processions.
3. The Son did proceed as the second per∣son,
the holy Ghost as the third person of
the Godhead, and hereby they endeavour
to distinguish the order of these divine
processions. We know this divine pro∣cession is
1. Spirituall.
2. Eternall, because divine.
3. Immutable; this procession is not a
change of the Spirit from not being to be∣ing,
or from an imperfect being to a more
perfect being. We know that procession
cannot be a motion from one place to an∣other,
for the Spirit is omnipresent, fills
all places, and therefore cannot change its
place. 4. Necessary. The Father and Son
did from all eternity breath forth the Spi∣rit
in the unity of the Godhead, not by a∣ny
alienation of the Godhead from them∣selves,
but by an unspeakable communica∣tion
of the same divine Nature to a third
person of the Godhead; And this commu∣nication
is naturall, and therefore necessa∣ry
it is, but not Involuntary; the Father
descriptionPage 221
and Son did not breath forth the Spirit by
any Coaction or Compulsion: and yet we
cannot say that the Father and the Son did
Arbitrarily or freely breath forth the Spi∣rit
as all three persons did create the world;
for they did create the world with such li∣berty
and freedome as that they might
not have created it; but they did Natural∣ly
and necessarily breath forth the Spirit,
and could not but breath him forth: this
inward and personall Act is Naturall; such
is the perfection of the Godhead that it
must needs be communicated to all three
persons; and such is the coessentiall unity of
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, as that
all three do necessarily and naturally sub∣sist
in the self-same entire and infinite
Godhead. True it is, that the will of God
is the Nature of God, but nature is a more
comprehensive Word, and therefore ac∣cording
to our manner of apprehension
and in strictnesse of speech, it is more pro¦per
to say that the Father and the Son did
breath forth the Spirit by the perfection of
their Nature, then to say they breathed
him forth of their own will, or by some Ar∣bitrary
Decree; for then it will follow that
there might have been but two persons of,
descriptionPage 222
and in the Godhead, that the holy Spirit
doth exist and subsist Contingently, and by
consequent that the Spirit is no person of
the Godhead. The acute Samosatenian
whom learned Iunius confutes, desired to
know whether the Holy Ghost was produced
by an action of the Will;
Iunius answers;If you oppose the will of
God to the nature of God, we cannot say that
the Spirit doth proceed from the Father
and the Son by their will but by their na∣ture,
because the Father, Son and Spirit
are Coessentiall; for as the Father did be∣get
his Naturall Son by his Nature, so do
the Father and the Son breath forth the co∣essentiall
Spirit by their nature; nor is it safe
to say, saith Iunius, that the nature of the
Father doth breath forth the Spirit by an
action of his will, but rather according to
that manner (the infinite distance being
observed between what is humane and di∣vine)
after which the will doth proceed in
man: and this saith he is but a weak re∣semblance
descriptionPage 223
of the Schools, which we are
not bound to defend. For the Nature of
God is pure, single, infinite, and therefore
we must not follow those resemblances
too farre which are grounded upon the
distinction of the understanding and the
will in creatures, because even that point
is very disputable, and the most single and
perfect nature of God doth infinitely
transcend the perfection of Angels. I be∣leeve
you are, as I am, willing to get out
of the dark. But enough of that, for we
read that the Saints are begotten by the
will of God, Iames 1. 18. But we must not
conceive that Christ is begotten, or the
Spirit breathed forth after the same man∣ner
as we are regenerated: the Spirit is
breathed forth in a Connaturall and Coes∣sentiall
way in the unity of the single and
entire Godhead; but we are regenerated
by the graces of God.
The spirit doth proceed equally from the
Father and the Son; for the unity of the
divine nature, and equality of divine per∣sons
cannot be maintained if that princi∣ple
be denyed. Peter Lombard and his ad∣herents
did mince the point with a very
dangerous distinction: that the Spirit doth
proceed principally from the Father, and
lesse principally from the Son. But it is
clear & evident that the Holy Ghost being
a Coessential person hath the self-same di∣vine
descriptionPage 224
nature and essence entirely commu∣nicated
unto him which is in the Father
and the Son, without any Alienation of it
from them, or Multiplication of it in him;
and therefore the Spirit doth not proceed
from the Father and Son as they stand in
Relative opposition, but as they are essenti∣ally
and naturally one; and therefore the
Spirit did proceed from both equally, aequè
primò ac per se, as we use to say. The Spi∣rit
doth receive from Christ, Iohn 16. 14,
15. but the Spirit being God could not
receive any thing but subsistence from the
Father or the Son. The Spirit doth glo∣rifie
the Son, Iohn 16. 14. no otherwise
then the Son as God doth glorifie the Fa∣ther:
because the Son did receive his sub∣sistence
from the Father as the Spirit re∣ceives
his subsistence from the Father and
the Son.
We must carefully distinguish 1. Be∣tween
the generation of the Son, and pro∣cession
of the holy Spirit, though as we
have shewen above, the Son doth proceed,
if you take that word in a general notion.
The most exact Criticks wil not take upon
them to distinguish between 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Yet because we want words
to expresse our selves, the reverend Do∣ctors
of the Church thought fit to appro∣priate
Procession to the Holy Ghost for
distinction sake; and the Scripture saith
descriptionPage 225
that Christ is the only begotten Son of
God; God the Father is never called the
Father of the H. Ghost; nor is the H. Ghost
called the Son of God. Moreover, the
Schoolmen have given advantage to the e∣nemies
of the Trinity by discoursing of Di∣vine
Processions at large in a generall noti∣on;
and for these reasons I did endeavorto
distinguish the Procession of the Son from
the Spirit in this Chapter, in respect of the
Manner, Principle, and order of Procession.
2. We must carefully distinguish be∣tween
the Eternall Procession of the Spi∣rit,
and the Temporal Mission of the Spi∣rit;
but the Natural and Eternal Proces∣sion
of the Spirit may be evinced by the
Temporal Mission of the Spirit. The Greek
Church doth acknowledge, 1. that the Ho∣ly
Ghost is God; and 2. that he is one
and the same God with the Father and the
Son; and from hence we infer,
1. That the Son did not send the Spirit
by way of Command as if he were greater
then the Spirit.
2. That the Son did not send the Spirit
by way of Counsel and Advice, as if he
were wiser then the Spirit; and therefore
the only reason why he did Temporally
send him, is, because the Spirit did Natu∣rally
and Eternally proceed from him, and
receive his glorious subsistence of him. I
might discourse more largely upon this
descriptionPage 226
subject; but I consider what Athanasius,
Damascen, and divers other reverend Di∣vines
who did long study these mysterious
points, have after many perplexed debates
acknowledged. The Son (say they) was
begotten▪ and the Spirit proceeded; this we
are sure of, because it is written; if you en∣quire
after the manner how the one was
begotten, and how the other did proceed,
we answer that the Son was begotten▪ and
the Spirit did proceed eternally, unchange∣ably,
unspeakably.
Those places of Scripture which are spo∣ken
of God in the Old Testament are
said to be spoken of the Son, and the Spirit
in the New Testament, and therefore do
by consent of both Testaments, declare
that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are
one and the same God; for instance, The
sixth of Isaiah is spoken of Jehovah, the
God of Israel, whom the Mahumetans, Sa∣bellians
and Arrians do acknowledge to be
the true God, but this is spoken of Christ
saith Saint Iohn, chap. 12. 41. These things
said Isaiah when he saw his glory and spake
of him. But the Holy Ghost hath his share
in this prophesie, Acts ••8. 25. therefore
they who beleeve both ••estaments, must con∣clu••e
that the Father, Son and the Holy
Ghost are one and the same God.
Finally, the Personall actions and pro∣perties
of these three declare them to be di∣stinct
descriptionPage 227
persons; therefore it is easie to con∣clude
that Father, Son and H. Ghost are three
distinct persons, and yet one and the same God.
That the Spirit is a person of the God∣head,
hath been proved in the fourth chap∣ter
of this Book; That he is a distinct per∣son
from the Father and the Son, is most
clear by that which hath been said both in
that chapter and in this▪ and all those
places might be heaped up which prove the
personal appearance of the Spirit, when he
did assume the shape of a Dove, and ap∣peared
as in Tongues of fire, his teaching,
leading, acting, ruling, comforting, distri∣buting
of gifts and the like, together with
the several phrases of him in Scripture, and
frequent joyning him with the Father and
Son as their equall in power and authority
in bestowing all spiritual and eternall bles∣sings
do evince the same. The notes of
distinction Another, even the Spirit; These
three, &c. The change of the gender in
relative Articles, which must necessarily
be referred to the Spi••it, is very considera∣ble.
But I have said more then enough up∣on
this point, and therefore proceed to
make the distinction of these three uncrea∣ted [ V]
persons yet more evident.
V. These uncreated persons are suffici∣ently
distinguished by their Order. The
Scripture doth most commonly place the
Father first in order, the Son second, the
descriptionPage 228
Holy Ghost third, when all three are
named; and by the inward and personall
actions (which have been mentioned) it
doth appear, that, this is the Naturall Or∣der
of these uncreated Persons; for the Son
cannot be placed in Order before the Fa∣ther,
because he is naturally begotten of
the Father; the Holy Ghost cannot be
placed in order before the Son, because he
doth naturally proceed from the Son: this
is the proper and natural order. Basil the
great in his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 complains
that some in his time did place the Son in
order before the Father, and the Holy
Ghost before the Son, that they might gain
some advantage by that device. Basil tels
them that he had received order from the
Lord to Baptize in the name of the Father
Son and Holy Ghost, and therefore was re∣solved
to preserve that order 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
inviolable, notwithstanding any de∣vices
or attempts for to prevent it. When
the Witnesses in Heaven are reckoned up
in a businesse of the highest consequence,
they are reckoned in this very order▪ 1 Iohn
5. 7. The Father, the Word, and the Spi∣rit.
But it is confessed that sometimes it is
most agreeable to the scope and purpose
of the Holy Ghost to place the Son before
the Father▪ as appears 2 Cor. 13. 13. Gal.
1. 1. and hence it is likewise, that the Ho∣ly
Spirit is sometimes placed before the
descriptionPage 229
Son, as Revel. 1. 4, 5. and sometimes be∣fore
the Father and the Son, 1 Cor. 12 4, 5,
6. But the natural order doth not over∣throw
either the equality or coeterni∣ty
of the Persons, nor doth that order of
Enumeration which is pro instituto, over∣throw
the natural order, and both do suf∣ficiently
prove the distinction of the three
uncreated Persons.
VI. The Divine Persons are sufficiently
distinguished by their Personal Properties;
The property of the Father is to subsist of
himself, that is, to receive subsistence or
subsisting life from none but himself. I
shall not enter into that sad dispute whe∣ther
this Personal Property be Absolute or
Relative? whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth not
import something asPositive and abso∣lute
as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? It is pleaded that the selfe
subsistence of the Father is not his Father∣hood:
and that that rule is beyond dispute,
Habere subsistentiam à se non dicit respe∣ctum
ad Aliud, vel Al••um; And therefore
I humbly offer it to the consideration of
the learned, whether that self subsistence
whereby the first person is d••stinguished from
the Son and the Spirit be Absolute, or Rela∣tive?
I will not take upon me to deter∣mine
any thing in so deep a point, or suf∣fer
my reason to wax wild and wanton in
discoursing of so great a mystery: and ther∣fore
though there be something hinted
descriptionPage 230
which may amount to a videtur quod sic
in the behalf of the lesse common opinion
in the 142▪ age of this book: and it is clear
that all three Persons are nothing else but
the Godhead considered with all abso∣lute
and Relative perfection, yet I con∣ceive
it safest to wave that point, and con∣clude
with that learned divine, Nos fidelem
ignorantiae professionem temerariae assertio∣ni
praeferendam judicamus. Whether then
this self-subsistence be Absolute or Rela∣tive,
it is enough for our present purpose
to prove that the first Person of the God∣head
is distinguished by his self-subsistence
from the blessed Son and holy Spirit. The
self-subsistence of the Father is Incommu∣nicable,
It is proper and peculiar to the first
Person to have subsistence from none but
himselfe▪ and to be the first Personal Prin∣ciple
which gives subsistence to the other
two coessentiall and coequall persons. The
Son receives subsistence from the Father,
the Spirit receives subsistence from the Fa∣ther
and the Son, as hath been proved a∣bove;
and therefore this self-subsistence
doth make a very remarkable, and undeni∣able
difference between the Father and the
two other uncreated Persons.
Some learned men have from hence in∣ferred,
that because the Father alone hath
subsistence from himselfe, therefore the
Father alone is God of himself.
descriptionPage 231
But the consequence is absurd, for they
do not distinguish between the Essence of
God & the peculiar subsistences, in the God∣head.
The Essence of God is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
and is one and the same in all, and
every one of the uncreated Persons: it is (if
I may so speak) a self-essence and essence it
selfe a self-Deity, because every one of
the Persons is truly, properly, essentially
God, God himselfe; and therefore if the Es∣sence
of the Father be a self-Deity, so is the
Essence of the Son and Spirit. The Divine
Essence of the Son is not begotten, caused,
produced any more then the Essence of the Fa∣ther;
the subsistence of the Son is begotten,
but not caused; the Divine Essence is com∣municated
to the Son, but it is not begotton
by the Father; for the Father doth commu∣nicate
that selfe same Divine and entire Es∣sence,
which is in himselfe, by begetting the
personal subsistence of the Son in the Unity
of the Godhead from the dayes of eterni∣ty.
Christ is not God by grace, but by
nature; and the Will of the Father did not
precede and produce the Godhead in Christ,
but accompany and approve the naturall
communication of the Godhead to Christ,
even as his Will doth approve his own na∣tural
and eternal goodnesse; and therefore
Christ is both his natural Son, as hath been
proved, and the Son of his love, Coloss. 1. 13.
Genebrardus was too blame to fall foule
descriptionPage 232
upon Calvin and Beza, and other reform∣ed
Writers whom he condemns as guilty
of a new Heresie called Autotheanisme, be∣cause
they said that Christ was God of him∣self,
but he was not the Son of himself. Calvin
and Beza did not deny that the Godhead
was from all eternity communicated to
the Son by the Father; onely they say,
1. That the Godhead which is communica∣ted
is in it self, of it self truly, properly, es∣sentially
Divine; because the selfe-same
Godhead is in the Father and Son whole
and entire in both.
2. Because the Godhead which is com∣municated,
is not begotten; the unbegotten
Godhead is communicated to the only begot∣ten
Son by an eternall generation.
3▪ Because the Godhead which is com∣municated,
is not caused, produced, created
by the Father, as Valentinus Gentilis dreamt.
And therefore Genebrardus, Canisius, Gif∣ford,
Stapleton, Faber Fevardentius, and
the rest are extremely mistaken, when they
say that Calvin and Beza deny that the
Father did beget his Son in the unity of his
own divine essence; For the meaning of
Calvin was plainly this, The Son hath the
selfe-same divine nature with the Father,
they are Coessential: one and the same
God who is the only true God, God of
himselfe, not God by participation, or cre∣ation,
but God by nature and essence; for
descriptionPage 233
Calvin speaks in opposition to Valentinus
Gentilis, who denyes the Son and Spirit to be
coessentiall with the Father, but saith the
Father did essentiate the Son with another
manner of essence then his owne divine es∣sence,
namely with a created and produced
essence. Gentilis saith, the Father onely
is truly God, because he only hath an in∣created
Godhead, and the Son hath not the
self-same Godhead with the Father.
I had not said so much on this Argument
but that I find Papists, Arminians, Socini∣ans,
and some bitter Lutherans do all joyn
their forces to abuse Calvin, Beza, Viret,
Farrell, Simler, Volanus, Gualter, Bullinger,
Lavater, the Orthodox Helvetians, and
many other reformed Writers upon this
Argument. Some say these reverend Di∣vines
are guilty of Heresie, Blasphemy, A∣theisme,
because they say Christ is God of
himselfe, though they clearly mean that
he is one God with his Father, and that the
Godhead which is communicated to the Son
by generation is an unbegotten Godhead,
a self-Deity. If any one desire to read
more upon this Argument, he may consult
Valentinus Gentilis, and all that write a∣gainst
him, especially Calvin, and the rest
of the Reformed Writers named but now:
he may read the Ancients, with whom Ar∣minius
was not well acquainted; for if he
had read them, he would not have said that
descriptionPage 234
the word〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉is not to be found in
the writings of the Fathers.
They who are taken with Platonical
raptures may read Dionysius, Plato's corri∣vall;
Maximus Pachymerius and the rest,
will give them some light therein. Atha∣nasius,
Basil, Epiphanius, Nazianzen, Da∣mascen,
speak the same thing either 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; to whom I
might adde Iustin Martyr, Anastasius and
Cyrill; as for Origen, I know his writings
have been extremely corrupted by the ini∣quity
of his Antagonists, and yet there are
many things that are excellent in him,
which I am in charity obliged to conceive
to be his genuine and proper judgement,
and to impute many of his errors to the
fraud, ignorance, or malice of such as made
too bold with his Works, or else to a kind
of liberty of speaking, which good wits
are not free from, when they have no ad∣versary
in sight who is like to call them to
an account for their irregular phrases. Bel∣larmine
is as modest, as we could expect
such a sophister to be; only he did not take
notice of the controversie between Calvin
and Gentilis; but we will pardon that error;
for we know the Cardinal was not at lea∣sure,
and therefore did many times passe
sentence upon the Protestants for expedi∣tion
sake before he had heard their cause.
Gregory de Valentia is very ingenuous in
descriptionPage 235
this point, and makes a fair Apology for
the Autotheans. If any desire to take a
shorter cut, I shall refer them to three
most eminent Divines who have studyed
this point exactly, and are very criticall
both in state of the question, and their
phrases, Chamier, Gomarus and Voetius; and
now, I crave leave to proceed without beg∣ing
pardon for this necessary digression,
because I hope it may be very useful to
learned men.
It is now easie upon the due considerati∣on
of the premisses to state the point right.
It is proper to the Father to have,
1. The Godhead without any commu∣nication
of it to him from any other uncre∣ated
Person.
2. To have subsistence from, and of him∣selfe
as he is the first Person, and the first
personall Principle of giving subsisting life
unto the other two Coessentiall Persons.
For the first uncreated Person cannot re∣ceive
subsistence from any person, because
he is the first person in order, though all
three be equall in respect of dignity and du∣ration;
there can be no person in order be∣fore
the first Person to communicate his God∣head,
or give personall subsistence to him
either by generation or spiration, and this
must needs be a Characteristicall and di∣stinctive
property which declares the subsi∣stence
of the Father to be incommunicable.
descriptionPage 236
For though all three uncreated persons do
subsist in the Godhead, yet self-subsistence
is proper to the Father; the Father alone is
the first personall principle of subsisting
life; the Father is distinguished from the
Son, because the Father is unbegotten, and
because he did beget the Son; the Father
is distinguished from the Spirit, because he
did breath forth the Spirit. But I have said
enough of that when I treated above of
the inward and personall actions. I need
not take notice of their nice exception
who say the Father is not his owne Father,
and therefore cannot be said to be begot∣ten
of himself, or to have subsistence from
himselfe; yet because some take advantage
thereby to censure the reverend Doctours
of the Church, I shall stop the Criticks
mouths with one Criticisme out of Hesy∣chius
and Suidas, To be begotten of ones self
(saith Hesychius) is to be begotten of none.
God is said to be begotten of himself because
he is unbegotten; & Suidas concurs, and doth
either transcribe or subscribe. No man ever
dreamt that the Father did beget either his
Godhead, or his own personall subsistence: for
the Godhead were no Godhead if it were
begotten; & we know the Father is not his
own Father though Synesius and some such
Poeticall wits who meant well have adven∣tured
upon such dangerous expressions. It
doth imply a contradiction that any thing
descriptionPage 237
should be the cause of it self, or its own
effect, for the cause is before the effect, and
nothing can be before and after it self; and
there is a friendly opposition between cor∣relates;
the Father cannot be his own Son.
But notwithstanding all that hath been al∣leaged
by these Criticall disputants, still it
holds good that the Godhead was not com∣municated
to God the Father by any person
created or uncreated, and the first person did
not receive his personall subsistence from any
other person by generation, spiration, or
any other way. But I must not dwell upon
this Argument. [ VII]
VII. The uncreated persons are suffici∣ently
distinguished by their personall and
inward relations; but we must not con∣ceive
that there are as many Persons in the
Godhead, as there are Relations; for the
Father is related to the Son and to the Spi∣rit;
and the Son is related to the Father
and to the Spirit; and the Spirit is related
to the Father and the Son. But there is a
friendly opposition evidenced by some Re∣lations
which do help together with the
Actions, Order and Properties above men∣tioned
to demonstrate some kind of di∣stinction
between the Persons; The Son
as he is a Son, is Relatively opposed to the Fa∣ther
who begat him; and so the Spirit as pro∣ceeding
by spiration is Relatively opposed
to the Father and the Son who did both
descriptionPage 238
joyne in breathing forth the holy Spirit;
Relations distinguish as proper, and oppo∣site.
I might discourse concerning the Order
of these persons in working, as well as of
their order in subsisting; something might
be spoken of the peculiar manner of their
working ad extra: and much might be said
of the Incarnation of the Son to declare
him to be distinct from the Father and the
Spirit; and something of the effusion of the
Spirit; but I have said enough to evidence
that these uncreated Persons are distin∣guished;what kind of distinction there is be∣tween
them, I am now to show, and that
I may be brief and plain in the opening of
this weighty point, I shall lay down the
truth clearly in some few Propositions.
1. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are
[ I] not Essentially distinguished: for Christ
and his Father are one, John 10. 30. and
all three are Essentially one, 1 John 5. 7.
The Synod of Calcedon determined, that
Christ was Coessentiall with his Father ac∣cording
to his Divinity, and Coessential with
descriptionPage 239
us according to his Humanity; but the na∣turall
Union between us and Christ doth
only prove a specifical unity; but Christ
and his Father have one and the self-same
Divine and undivided Essence. He must
acknowledge more gods, who holds that the
Son and Spirit have another or different
kind of Godhead from the Father. The
Arrians did divide the Nature of the Tri∣nity,
and the Sabellians did confound their
Persons; but Christians acknowledge and
maintain that there are three Persons, and
but one single divine nature in the blessed
Trinity; only the second person did assume
the nature of man that he might heale our
nature, and save our persons.
2. These three Divine Persons are
not distinguished realiter separabiliter:
That is, they are not so distinguished, as
that they can be divided or separated one
from another, as created Persons and [ II]
Things may. These three Coessentiall per∣sons
are omnipresent, they do all three sub∣sist
in the self-same omnipresent nature;
nay, they do all three subsist in one another,
without any contraction, commixtion, or con∣fusion,
as hath been proved at large in the
161, 162. and the following pages of this
Book. These Coessentiall subsiste••ts can∣not
be separated, or divided any more then
their indivisible and infinite Essence can
be divided or multiplyed.
descriptionPage 240
3 These three uncreated Persons are
truly distinguished; this proposition is fully
proved already in this very chapter: I
know it will be expected by some, that I
should say that these three Persons are di∣stinguished
Really; but I shall humbly desire
them to consider, that some have by that
expression taken occasion to exercise their
wanton wits in cavelling against this deep
and glorious mystery to the great preju∣dice
of this weighty truth. If they be re∣ally
distinguished, say some, then they dif∣fer
essentially, or tanquam res & res, then
they may be separated, say others, then
there are three Gods, say a third. It is too
well known what sport Atheists have made
upon this advantage; and truly it is much
at one whether men do professe themselves
Atheists or Tritheites; for he who doth be∣leeve
that there are three Gods, may when
he pleases, beleeve that there is no God
at all.
Vorstius presses those that call the di∣stinction
between the Persons Reall after
this manner; If the three persons be really
distinguished, then they are tres Res, three
reall things; for the multiplication of per∣sons
is reall, and therefore the Son being
really distinct from the Father, and the Spi∣rit
from both, they must needs have three
essences really distinct. And if they are tres
Res, then either three substances, or three
descriptionPage 241
Accidents; but the Reformed Divines can∣not
saith Vorstius grant, that they are
three accidents, because they deny that
there is any accident in God; and if
they be three substances, then there are
saith he three Gods. Valentinus Gentilis
and some Ministers of Transylvania
reason much after the same manner.
I know not whether Master Fry did
ever read any of their writings, but
sure I am he hath conversed with some of
that perswasion, or else, his carnall reason
is of neer kin to theirs.
For upon this very ground Mr. Fry doth
adventure to explode three distinct persons or
subsistencies out of his Creed, but he will ne∣ver
be able to explode them out of the God∣head:
he may sooner explode himself out of the
number of Christians; for if he take away the
Divine Person of Christ, he takes away the
foundation of christianity. But having shew∣ed
him his danger, I desire to satisfie his
reason, awaken his Faith, & settle his Con∣science
in this weighty point: if he will
deny his carnall reason, and not require
descriptionPage 240
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
descriptionPage 241
〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉
descriptionPage 243
any example, to illustrate a mystery above
reason, and beyond example: Master Fry
will tell us news indeed, if he can make it
good, That any Ministers or Members of
the Church of God in England do make Ie∣sus
Christ a distinct God from God the Fa∣ther.
2. He may do well to publish those rea∣sons,
which move him and the others he
speaks of, to be of that opinion.
3. He doth acknowledge that these
three, the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy
Ghost are equally God, pag. 21. Let him
consider his own confession [these three]
what are these three? are they three Gods?
No, that he doth abominate: are they
three Accidents, no, that is absurd; are they
three substances? if so, then created or un∣created;
not created, for that he saith
none will affirme: are they three uncrea∣ted
substances? No saith he, for then they
would consequently be three Gods, p. 23.
I hope by this time he sees how easie it
is to retort his owne Argument; and if this
retortion may helpe him to answer it, I
shall be glad that I have retorted it.
descriptionPage 243
His onely answer ought to be, I doe be∣leeve
that these three are three Subsistents in
the same single and infinite Godhead, Phil. 2.
6. Joh. 10. 30. 1 Joh. 5. 7. Heb 1. 3.
Vorstius, Valentinus Gentilis, the Tran∣sylvanians
require some more curious an∣swer;
but I shall be as plaine, and as briefe
as the weight and depth of this Mystery
will permit me to be; I remember that
Aristotle saith,He doth make a truth suffici∣ently
plaine, who brings such proofes as the
point in question will beare.
Now it is most evident that supernaturall
Mysteries cannot be expounded according to
the rules of Art.
Some returne this answer, That if by
Tres Res, three reall things, you meane
three persons; there are three Real persons
in the Godhead; they are not made three
by a fiction of reason, they are declared
three by the plaine words of Scripture; but
they were three before any Scripture was
written, even from the dayes of eternity.
But if by Tres Res, three reall things, you
meane three Divine Essences, we do deny
that three persons are three Divine Essen∣ces,
or three Gods; for these three persons
are but one God blessed for ever.
descriptionPage 244
If you aske others, they will say that
these three are one Being, but they are
three proper and peculiar manners of
being subsisting in the same God-head.
They have one essentiall subsistence say o∣thers,
but they have three Incommunicable
manners of subsisting. Some expresse it
thus, these three are Really distinct, but
not Essentially; Modally, but not separably;
Truly, but Relatively; Formally, and yet
but Personally. Others that meane the
same thing, say they are distinguished Se∣cundum
esse Personale, non secundum esse
Quidditativum.
They then that say the persons are Real∣ly
distinct, should explain themselves wari∣ly
according to some of these or the like
safe expressions: namely that by really
1 they doe not meane essentially.
2. They do not mean separably.
3. That by really they doe meane
that the Relations and personall proper∣ties,
whereby the three persons are known
to be distinguished, are reall relations and
descriptionPage 245
reall properties, and not fictions of reason.
The Relations are opposite, the proper∣ties
incommunicable, and much might be
said of the personall actions to the selfe-same
purpose; but I must hasten.
Some do adventure to call this distincti∣on
naturall, but that is a very dangerous
expression, it must not passe without some
favourable graines of allowance, nor can it
then passe unlesse it be seasoned with some
graines of Salt, and be mollified with some
faire and Orthodox Interpretation. By na∣turall
distinction, they meane Relative,
because say they the relations which are
between these uncreated persons are not
onely real, but naturall also. The Relation
between God the Father and his owne na∣turall
Son is a naturall relation, grounded
upon a naturall and personall act••on;
namely, the eternall generation of the
Son. The Greek Fathers speake much of
the Familiar and proper Emphasis of this
naturall Relation between the Father and
the Son.
descriptionPage 246
By naturall distinction then they do not
meane an essentiall distinction, as if the
three uncreated persons did differ in na∣ture;
but naturall, in that sound and Or∣thodox
sense recited above.
I had rather leave my Margin to relate
the curiosities of others, then to perplex a
meer English Reader with any Scholastical
difficulties. I have said enough for the ex∣plication
of those termes which are most
usuall, and yet likely to give offence to
such as do not understand the importance
of them. I shall therefore conclude this
point with Fulgentius his Commentary,
which is an excellent Contexture of some
pertinent Scriptures for the proofe of the
point. When you read (saith he) of Father,
Son and Spirit, understand that there are
three persons of one essence, omnipotence, eter∣nity,
&c. For our Saviour saith, I am not
alone, but I and the Father that sent me
Ioh. 8, 16. And concerning the spirit he saith,
And I will pray the Father, and he will give
you another Comforter, even the spirit of
Truth, Joh. 14. 16, 17. Moreover he com∣manded
his Apostles to baptize all Nations
in the name of the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost. And the equality of the Persons
proves the unity of the Nature, Phil. 2. 6.
descriptionPage 247
Iohn 5. 18. and from hence he concludes
that there are three Persons, and not three
Natures in the blessed Trinity.
From what hath been said, it is evident
that these three uncreated Persons are tru∣ly
distinguished, but they cannot be divi∣ded;
and it is not so safe to expresse the di∣stinction
of uncreated Persons by Termes of
Art; They who say the distinction is Na∣turall,Reall, Absolute, or Relative, do de∣ny
that the distinction is Essentiall, or that
the Persons are separable. They who speak
most tenderly, say it is Modall, Formall,
Personall. They who say it is Naturall in
respect of Personall Relations and Naturall
Actions, confesse that it is Supernaturall
and Mysterious, because the Unity of the
Godhead is unquestionable; the Trinity of
Persons subsisting in that Godhead admira∣ble;
both put together undeniable and inex∣plicable,
and yet most necessarily and high∣ly
credible.
They who say the Persons are Formally
distinct, do mean that they are truly di∣stinct;
they do not conceive that the distin∣ction
descriptionPage 248
of the uncreated Persons is grounded
upon a meer fiction of reason, or upon the
weaknesse of our apprehension, as if we
did conceive one Person to be three Per∣sons,
because he is called by three names,
as Praxeas, Sabellius, and some others
dreamt. Nor do they beleeve that this di∣stinction
of these three uncreated Persons
is only grounded upon the phrase of Scrip∣ture:
but they do acknowledge that there
is a true and proper, not an improper and
figurative distinction between these uncre∣ated
Persons; nay, they all confesse that
this true and proper distinction is an Eter∣nall
distinction; it was from, and it will last
to all eternity, and therefore is not groun∣ded
only upon some offices and externall
dispensations which have respect unto the
creature.
Notes
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. A∣than s. ad Scr••pio∣nem.
Trinitatis divinum dogma est; In Deo sic est ut di∣cit; in Scri∣pturâ sic dicit ut est; in Ecclesiâ sic creditur ut Scriptura di∣cit. Iunius contra errores Samosit.
Negamus Deum esse unicam personam tribus nominibus appellatam contra Praxean Sabellium, &c. Negamus tres personas divinas esse tres Deos contra Trithei∣tas ad unum omnes. Vide Tertull. contra Praxean. Calvinum contra Servetum. & Aug. Haeres. c. 41.
Deitas est perfectio infinita simplicis sime unica Unitas ad essentiam pertinet, distinctio vero personarum non ad essentiam propiè & per se, sed ad rationem in essentiâ pertinet. Iunius contra errores Samosat.
Filium à Patre, imò ex ipso Pa∣tre, & in ipso Patre genitū in∣telligimus est enim Fi∣lius Con∣substantia∣lis, Coes∣sentialis, & proinde Patri coae∣qualis. Si Filius sit par Deo, par Patri ergo est ei coaequalis: si unum cum Patre, ergo etiam Coessentialis, 1 Iohan. 5. 7.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Iohan 5. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Rom. 8 32. Pro∣prium op∣ponitur a∣lieno quod est extra essentiam Act. 3. 12, Vide D. Al∣ting Expli. Cacec. par. 2. q••. 33. pag. 177.
Totam habet es∣sentiam Patris qui dicitomnia quaecun{que} pater ha∣bet mea sunt. Iohan. 16. 15. nisi velint haeretici etiam patrem duntaxat partem essentiae divinae habere. Et situt Pater habet vitam in se∣ipso, sic dedit filio habere vitam in seipso. Iohan. 5. 26.
Homo generat modo phy∣sico, spiri∣tus crea∣tus modo Meta hy∣sico, spiri∣tus increa∣tus modo plusquam Hyperphy sico; Ho∣mo gignit filium à se efficienter, exse Ma∣terialiter, extra se Terminative. Substantia producit accidens à se effi∣cienter, in se subjective. Deus non gignit filium efficienter, quia filius non dependet a patre tanquam effectus a causâ; de∣pendentia enim in esse de creaturis tant••m propriè dicitur, quarun essentia est sinita. Deus non gignit in se subjectivè, nec extra se Terminativè, nec ex se Materialiter; gignit autem in se & ex se Immu••abiliter, & ••t ita dicam ••pestentialiter, quia genitus non est extra gignentem, sed in eo, & cum eo sabsistit in unâ uniicâque essentia indivisâ. Particula [Ex] Jo∣han. 1. 14. non significat Materiam ex quâ, sed principlum à quo.
Generatio filii non est libera, sed necessaria; filius enim De∣us est, & proinde ens summè necessarium.
Nomen si∣lii Dei est quidem nomen ho∣monymū Christo Angelis nec non ho¦minibus etiam com∣mune: ra∣tio autem nominis est plane ••i∣versa, quia Christus prae Ange∣lis nomen excellen∣tius sorti∣tusest. An∣geli sunt filii Dei ad imaginem Dei creati ob gratiae collationē generatio∣nisimilen: sunt ita{que} Filii Dei impropriè per Meta∣phoram. Sancti fi∣lii Dei di∣cuntur eti∣am sed Me∣taphorice respectu regen••ra∣tionis nec non Adoptionis; solus itaque Christus Propriè Dei Filius est; filius Primogenitus quoniā ante ipsum nullus: filius etiam unigenitus, quia neque post ipsum alius à Patre genitus. Tota tamen filiorum Dei familia in calis & in terrà ex ipso Christo tanquam primogenito nominatur, ut videre est Ephes. 3. v. 15. Christo nomen Dei, Angelis nomen ministorum tribuitur, Christus sedet ad dextram Dei ut Deus—Christus itaque est solus filius Dei Naturalis. Vide M••rt. Smiglecii lib. de Christo vero & Naturali Dei Filio adversus impia dogma∣ta Valentini Smalcii. Et Gomari Analys. Epist. ad Hebraeos p. 199. nec non Disput. 7. de Patris & Filii personis. pag. 25. 26. operum par. tertia.
Particula 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ••oh••n. 1 14. non est Assimilativa, sed Declarativa, Assertiva, Demon∣strativa, rei veritatem exprimens. Vide Io. Maccovii Loc. Com. Disput 24. De Fili•• Dei p. 193. Particula quasi non est assimi∣lativa, sed expressiva veri, &c▪
Vidimus gloriam ejus ut u∣nigeniti à Patre, id est qualis unigenitū Dei dece∣bat ad de∣monstran∣dam s••am Deitatem. Nam par∣ticula 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 non simili∣tudinis, sed causae nota est, rei ip∣sius veri∣tatem. ex∣primens. Vide D▪ Alting. Explicat. Cateche. par. 2. qu. 33. p. 176.
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Greg. Naz. Orat 23. in lau∣d•• Heronis verè filiū▪ quod & so∣lus (sit fili∣us), & so∣lus (Patri filius) & si••gulari modo fili us, & soli Filius, non filius simul & Pate••.
Magistri nostri quicquid hoc Psal∣mo canitur de rege Messia in∣terpretati sunt: sed secundum verborum sonum, & ob refuta∣tionem hae∣reticorum convenit, ut eum in∣terprete∣murde ip∣so Davide, Heb. bib. mag. cum com. Rab. edit. a Bombergio Venetiis. Rab∣bi Salomon. com. in Psalmum secundum.
Caelitus clamavit Pa••er Hic est filius ille meus, u•• te∣statum faceret hunc esse proprium suum naturalem fil••um, è numero aliorum filiorum eo ipso exemptum.
Genui Ps. 2. prop••iè significat generatio∣nem aeter∣nam. Ge∣nui Act 13. significat Metonymi ce, hoc est genitu••patefeci ho∣••ie, cum te excitavi a ••m r••uis, R••m. 1. 4. explici••è dicuntur verba ista Psal. 2. de generatione, implicitè & consequenter autem resurrectioni accommodantur; conse∣quenter inquam non ratione consequentis sed consequentiae. Vide D. Gomari Analys. Epist. ad Hebraeos pag. 299.
Concerning the Proces∣sion of the Holy Ghost. Spiritus di∣citur non respectu spiritualis essentiae, sed Incom∣municabi∣lis subsi∣stentiae, quia à Pa∣tre & Filio unà quasi spiranti••bus proce∣dit.
Omnia quae 〈◊〉〈◊〉 u∣nâ persona dicuntur, de ali••••••ti∣ā dic••tur, excep••is relationi∣bus oppo∣sit••s, quia nihil i•• Deo mul∣tiplicatur ni•• relatio opposita; spiratio••∣tem quâ Pater spi∣rat, non opponitur spirauoni▪ quâ spirat Filius. Pa∣ter eni••••••nâ ead••∣que cum Filio spiratione spirat. Omnia quaecunque habet Pater, ••adem etiam Filius habe••, Iohn 16. 15. Iohn 17. 10. Exceptis ••••••∣tum iis, in quibus ei oppon••t••r▪ Non opponitur autem Pa••ri quod spirationem; Habet enim spiritus vitam subsistentem à Pa∣tre nec non filio unicissima spiratione. Vide D. Alting. Lo. Com. pag. 42. D. Maccovii Disput. 37. de Processione Spiritus. D. Brochmanum de S. sancto, qu. 8. Stegman. Photin. Disp. 6. wen∣delin. Christ. Th. lib. 1. cap. 2. Gomar. Disp. de Trinitate, Tom. 3. Disp. 7, 8. Junium Trin. Defens. contra Samosat. Polanum, Zanchium. Synop. Pur. Theol.
Vide Eni∣edin. in Ex¦plicat. loc. v. & N. T. p••g. 288. 289. Ca••e chis. Ra¦cov. cap. 6. Ostorod Instit. c. 4. Smalcium in 〈…〉〈…〉. Graweri. p. 6. Smal∣cium con¦tra Wi••k. vesp. ad cap. 15.
Pater & fi∣lius spiran∣do spiritū naturam divinam communi∣cant spiri∣tui, ita ut tribus Dei∣tatis per∣sonis com∣munis sit: non est haec Ali••∣natio sed Commu∣nicatio.
Spiritus Sanctus procedit nonvolun∣tate ut Scholasti∣ci, & post eos Cate∣chismus Romanus ambigue docuerunt, sed neces∣sitate na∣turae qu••∣admodum & filius na¦turâ geni∣tus est. Pa∣ternon spi∣rat sine fi∣lio, non ob defectum potentiae sed ob uni∣tatem es∣sentiae. Spi∣ritus Pro∣cedit ab u∣tro{que} sub∣sistit in u∣tro{que} quia est coessen∣tialis utri∣que, 1 Io∣han. 5. 7. & proinde haec aeterna Spiratio non est contingens sed necessaria; nec libera est nec Involuntaria. Neque enim ne∣cessitas haec vim infert, nec voluntas novum concilium desig∣••at ex deliberatione superveniens. Vide Athanas. Basilium, Cy∣rillum, Nazianzenum, Theodoretum, Damascenum. Vide Goma∣rum, D. Alting••um, Maccovium, Zanchium, Tilenum, Crocium, Stegmanum, Polan. Syntag. lib. 3. de Trinitate cap. 6.
Iunius Ca∣thol. Doct. de Trinit∣defen. con∣tra Samo∣sat. pag. 36 Spiritus Sanctus procedit Naturali∣te••, hoc est actione Na¦turae, non autem vo¦luntatis. Periculos•• dicitur spi∣ritum pro¦cedere na∣turâ quidē sed per ac∣tionem vo∣luntatis: Non procedit actione voluntatis propriè, sed secun∣dum actionem voluntatis procedere dicitur, id est secundum eamactionem, vel potius secundùm eum modum quo natura∣liter procedunt voluntas & charitas. De hac re igitur posse∣mus tacere, & rem Scholasticis defendendam permittere, aut ad libros eorum reijcere.
Vide Atha¦nasium 1. Dialog. de Trimtate Damasc. n. de fide Orthod. Modom Curiosita∣ti imponat Lector, nec mole∣sta▪ & per∣plexas di∣sputatio∣nes cupi∣diùs quàm par sit sibi accersat. Calv. In∣stit. lib. 1. cap. 13.
Pater 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a Do∣ctoribus Orthodo∣xis dicitur Negative, quia à nul∣lo est sed à ••eipso, & per seip∣sum ab om¦ni aet••rni∣tate subsi∣stit.
Solus Pa∣ter est 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 id est ànullo superiore Numine Essentia∣tus sed à seipso De∣us. Val. Gen. P••o the 8. 12. 40. & ulti∣mâ.
Eadem es¦sentia est in Patre 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Filio 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in Spiritu Sancto 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
Vocis sono 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 negativus terminus est sed re∣ipsa affir∣mat. D. Gerrard de Tribus E∣lohim. cap. 8. Sect. 50. pag. 175.
Spiratio non est fundamen∣tum rela∣tionis per∣sonalis hoc est propriae & peculia∣aris; rela∣tio autem distinguit vel quà propriavel quà oppo∣sita; pater∣nitas & spi∣ratio, Item filiatio & spiratio non oppo∣nuntur, non sunt proprietates peculiaries & incommunicabiles, & proinde non distingunt; relationes dicunt, sed non Persona∣les proprias & oppositas. Vide Tho. part. 1. quest. 30. art. 2. An distinctio inter essentiam & relationem s••t Realis, formalis, vel rationis. Vide Biol. 1. s••nt. dist. 2. qu. 11. & dist. 26. qu. 1. art. 3. Vide Basilium etiam contra Eunomium. lib. 2. p. 134.
In illâ Tri∣nitatis na∣turâ sic to∣tum unum est ut ni∣hil ibi pos∣sit separari vel dividi: sic totum aequale est ut nihil i∣bi majus aut minus valeat in∣veniri.
Tum enim in creatis subsisten∣tia & sup∣positalitas quia non sunt nihil sed aliquid haberent essentiam; & conse∣quenter es∣sentiae es∣set essentia & hujus rursum essentia, & sic in infinitum. Vide Eglisemnium in Crisi, pag. 20, 21. vide etiam Bis••er••eldium, Smiglecium, Steg∣mannum, ••esterum in examine Metaphys. Phot••ianae. D. Voeti∣um de unica & simplic. Dei natura, p. 236. Wendelinum, &c.
Si hic ra∣tio quae∣ritur, non est mirabi∣le: si exemplum poscitur, non est singulare, Aug. Ep. 3. & li. 15. de Civ. Dei. cap. 13. lib. 15. de Trin. cap. 7. & Iob. Damas. Orth•• fid. lib. 1. cap. 9,
Personae divinae Re∣aliter di∣stinguntur quia Scri∣ptura ali∣um dicit Patrem, a∣lium fili∣um, alium Spiritum Sanctum. Iohan. 5. 32. Iohan. 14. 16. & quia Rela∣tive oppo∣nuntur: at∣qui oppo∣sita, quà talia, non possu••t es∣se idem; nō tamen distinguuntur essentialiter: omnis quidem distinctio essentialis est realis, sed non è contra. Personae ita sunt realiter idem cum essentia divinâ ut tamen Relative inter se opponan∣tur; ad haec non sint praedicata Essentialia; distinguuntur ita∣que ab essentia divinâ ex natura rei eminenter. Vide D. Voet deunicâ & simplicis. Dei essentiâ, p. 234, 235, 236.
Pater Fili∣us & Spi∣ritus San∣ctus sunt tres Res, & non sunt tres Res diverso re∣spectu: tres Res respe∣ctu relati∣onum op∣positarum. non sunt tres Res secundum essentiam. Wendelin. Christian, Theolog. lib. 1. cap. 2. pag. 105. Proprietates Personales essentiam divinam nec componant, nec multiplicant, personas autem faeliciter distinguunt. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Justin Martyr.
Non di∣stinguun∣tur 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoc est es∣sentiâ, sed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hoc est Formali∣ter, sivé 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Persona∣liter. vide Dama••cen. lib. 1. de si∣de Orthod Modi in divinis non sunt separabiles, sunt autem reales, & modi re∣ales distinguunt realiter quamvis modaliter. Nonnulli di∣stinguunt inter esse Patris, & esse Patrē. Inter esse Quiddita∣tivum & esse Personale. Personalitas divina est realis; distin∣guuntur itaque Realiter quia distinguuntur Personaliter. Re∣lationes in divinis non componunt sed distinguunt: relationes autem reales realiter distinguunt. Proprietates reales propriè simul & realiter distinguunt.
Richardus Bonavent. & Ioh. de Rip; per∣sonas di∣stingui di∣cunt per proprieta∣tes Absolu∣tas primò, & per Re∣lationes Originis ex Conse∣quenti. Discrimen 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 tantùm sinxerunt Noëtiani. Epiphan. Haeres. 57. Distinctio personarū naturalis essè videtur, licèt non sit essentia lis inter Patrem & Filium na∣turalem intercedit enim relatio naturalis. Personae per nihil quomodocunque distinctum à personis primariò distinguun∣tur. Frustra sunt autem qui ideo personas eodem modo di∣stinctas esse somniant quo primò diversa distinguuntur; illa enim essentialiter distinguuntur. Vide Biel. 1 Sent. dist. 24. & 26. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Vide Greg. Nyssen. contra Eu-Eunomium lib. 1. Atha¦nas. Basil, Eunomium cont. Naz. D. Alting. Gomarum, Gerrard. Voetium, Maccov. Wendeli. Glassium, Rhadam, Capreolū, Becanum, Eglis••mnium in Crisi, Meisuerum, Iunium, Calovium.
Vide D. Voetium de unica & simp. Dei natura pag. 235. En Myste∣rium quod nec capit Ratio, nec demōstrat exemplum Sola enim revelatio∣ne divinâ nititur, & proinde fi∣de divinâ suscipiendum est & pieta••e suspiciendum. Vide D. Alting. de Cognitione Dei Relativa. Incomprehensibilis rei imaginem in rebus creatis frustra quaerin us. Aug. lib. 15. de civ. Dei cap. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪ Damas. Orth. fid. lib. 1. c. 9